Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-09-08
The Donkey I'm the Jury Box.

With all the machinery for securing
impartial juries there is always great
risk that the chosen twelve will con-
tain at least two Objectionable char
acters-the obstinate ass and the SYM
pathizing friend of the defendant. AS
respects the latter the law already
furnishes the means of excluding him
from the box by challenge-for 'cause"
where prejudice can be shown and by
peremptory challenge where bias is
known to exist but cannot be proved.
Still, the Juror who sympathizes with
the defendant on general principles or
for personal reasons, will slip into the
box undetected, and it would seem that
in making up the verdict some margin
ought to be allowed SO that the finding
should not be vitiated by the presence
of one unfit character among the ju-
rors. Indeed, allowance should be
made for two incapables on every jury
-"the donkey and the personal
friend" as the Springfield Republican
aptly terms them. Several suspected
sympathizers were eliminated from
the Jury in the Doodle case at the last
moment before beginning the trial,
but when it came to making up the
verdict it was found that one represen-
tative of the nulish class of incapables
was on the list, and he dictated the
finding.
The law at present supplies no
means for keeping obstinate, opinion
ated men out of the jury-box. A few
DAYS ago, in New York, summoned
talesman asked to be excused from
Jury service because he possessed IAN
obstinate and ungovernable temper. !"
He was excused by the Court, but
such applications are unfortunately
rare. The man who is constitutionally
incapable of agreeing with others,
and who invariably takes the contrary
side, usually imagines himself an
ideal iurer, and always profoundly
regrets the perverse stupidity OF the
eleven with whom he happens to be
associated. The chances are great that
one such crank will be found among
every twelve persons summoned as
Jurors. The law ought to make due
provision for the infirmities of human
nature, and permit the return of a
verdict whenever nine or ten of the
Jurors reach an agreement. The de-
cisions of Judges are often reached by
a mere majority A two-thirds ma
jority will suspend the rules in Con-
gress, override Presidential veto,
and even evoke satisfactory degree
of harmony in Democratic National
Convention. Why shouldn't three
fourths majority be considered suffi-
cent for the return of verdicts by
juries? If sympathizers and cranks
cannot be kept off the juries, why
should there not be suitable provision
for offsetting the votes of one of each
of these classes on every jury?
The requirement of unanimity in the
verdict of the jury is relic of the
dark ages. 1t was adoted at first be-
cause juries were only witnesses, and
the testimony of twelve was considered
necessary to prove fact. Now the
juries and judges, not witnesses, and
the weight of the evidence depends on
the character, not number, OF persons
who make oath. Nothing would be
held more absurd nowadays than to
require the uncontradicted testimony
of twelve witnesses before fact could
be considered established, and yet this
identical doctrine is at the bottom OF
the requirement that jurors must be
unanimous. Any one in searsh OF
relic of barbarism need only to drop
into courtroom and witness the re-
turn of verdict by jury.-(Chicago
Tribune.